Watson v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 544
2024 ONCAT 18 · February 2, 2024 · Notice upheld
ONCAT found a corporation's failure to enforce its own permit and license-plate-registration rules (Rules 9(e) and 9(f)) made it impossible for the corporation to effectively enforce the broader visitor-parking restriction in its declaration. The decision treats inconsistent enforcement as a breach of s.17(3)'s 'reasonable steps' duty when the inconsistency systemically defeats the corporation's ability to police any related provision. It also confirms that a corporation cannot impose 'compliance costs' for legal letters whose factual basis the Tribunal has not had an opportunity to examine.
Why this matters for Alberta owners
TL;DR: A condo can't pick and choose who it enforces a rule against. The Ontario tribunal in Watson found that when a corporation systematically fails to enforce its own framework rules — the ones that make consistent enforcement of the broader rule possible — that failure itself is a breach of the corporation's duty to take reasonable enforcement steps. The principle ports directly to Alberta: if your fine notice is for breach of a rule the corporation has let other owners ignore for years, or if the corporation lacks the structural framework (logs, registries, verification procedures) to enforce the rule consistently across all owners, those gaps are admissible evidence at the CDRT that the fine notice doesn't rest on reasonable enforcement.
The facts. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 544 had 25 visitor parking spaces in a 200-unit complex. Article III, section 6 of its declaration limited visitor parking to actual visitors. Rule 9(e) added an overnight permit requirement — anyone parking in a visitor space between 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. needed a permit displayed on the dashboard, valid for no more than three days. Rule 9(f) required owners to register the licence plate numbers of every vehicle driven by residents of their unit with the manager. The corporation enforced neither Rule 9(e) nor Rule 9(f) in any consistent way. As a result, the corporation had no permit log to check against and no vehicle registry to compare against — meaning that when an owner complained about a non-visitor parked in a visitor space, the corporation had no structural way to tell whether the car belonged to a visitor, a resident, or someone else entirely.
Ms. Watson, the applicant, brought multiple specific complaints. The headline example was a blue Toyota that sat in a visitor parking spot for over five months — December 2022 to June 2023 — never had an overnight permit, and was eventually towed only after one of its tires went flat and the local municipality intervened. There was also a Jeep parked in visitor parking for weeks at a time without a permit, and an Acura that the corporation took no action on despite Watson's repeated complaints.
What the tribunal held. Member Sanford's reasoning at paragraph 10 is the load-bearing holding. The starting point is s.17(3) of the Ontario Condominium Act, which obliges a corporation to take all reasonable steps to ensure owners and occupiers comply with the Act, declaration, by-laws and rules. The Member acknowledged the discretion built into the word "reasonable" — minor infractions don't all need enforcement. But the holding turns on what the corporation did to itself: "by not enforcing Rules 9(e) and (f), PCC 544 has made it impossible for itself to enforce the visitor parking provisions in its governing documents. PCC 544 cannot be considered to be taking reasonable steps to enforce its parking rules in these circumstances."
Why the framework rules mattered. Watson is unusual in that the inconsistent-enforcement defect operates structurally rather than situationally. The corporation wasn't selectively targeting Watson — it was failing to enforce the support-infrastructure rules (permits, vehicle registry) that would have made consistent enforcement of the substantive rule (no non-visitor parking) possible against anyone. Without those support rules being enforced, the corporation had no way to tell whether any given car belonged to a visitor or a resident. That structural impossibility is what tipped the tribunal toward finding a breach of the duty-to-enforce obligation. Mere selective enforcement — enforcing against Watson while letting other owners off the hook — was actually a different argument; the structural argument is stronger because it doesn't depend on showing the corporation's intent.
Why this matters in Alberta. The CDRT applies a substantial-compliance + prejudice framework to fine challenges under section 35 of the Condominium Property Act. A corporation that issues a fine notice under a rule it has failed to enforce against other owners has a substantial-compliance problem. A corporation that issues a fine notice under a rule it has no structural way to enforce consistently — no log, no registry, no verification procedure — has a Watson-style problem: the enforcement decision against you can't have been a reasonable application of the rule, because the corporation has no way of knowing whether it's a reasonable application against everyone else. Both defects are admissible at the CDRT, and FineCheck flags both when it finds them in the fine-notice + governing-documents context.
The bottom line: a fine notice under a rule the corporation can't or doesn't enforce consistently is structurally defective, not just unfair. Watson is the cleanest Ontario authority for the proposition that this defect rises to a breach of the duty to take reasonable enforcement steps. Run FineCheck on the notice for the procedural defects in the notice itself; document the inconsistent-enforcement evidence separately as substantive grounds for voiding the fine.
What the tribunal said
Selected excerpts from the Ontario CAT's reasoning. Full decision on CanLII.
[10] Under subsection 17(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 (the 'Act'), a condominium corporation, 'has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners, the occupiers of units, the lessees of the common elements and the agents and employees of the corporation comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules'. There is an element of discretion implied by the use of the word 'reasonable' in this provision. It is not necessary to enforce every minor infraction of every rule. However, the violations shown by Ms. Watson to have occurred in this case are not minor infractions. Moreover, by not enforcing Rules 9(e) and (f), PCC 544 has made it impossible for itself to enforce the visitor parking provisions in its governing documents. PCC 544 cannot be considered to be taking reasonable steps to enforce its parking rules in these circumstances. [12] I conclude that PCC 544 has failed to enforce the provisions of its governing documents regarding visitor parking consistently. It has also failed to establish the necessary framework of permits and vehicle identification to sufficiently enforce these provisions.
Connects to FineCheck's framework
Jurisdictional note: Ontario CATdecisions are not binding on Alberta's CDRT, but the CDRT will look to other Canadian condo tribunals for guidance under analogous statutory provisions until its own case law develops. The substantial-compliance + prejudice framework used in this decision parallels the test in CDRT Policies and Procedures s.7(b).
Decision date: February 2, 2024 · Citation: 2024 ONCAT 18 · Outcome: notice upheld. FineCheck's commentary is published for research and educational use; not legal advice. Verify any reliance on this decision against the original text.